SUBJECT TO EMBODIMENT

Rethinking Embodiment, Presence and the Body

NEDINE KACHORNNAMSONG

Thesis for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts with specialization in Digital Media Report No. 2009-0057 ISSN: 1651-4769

University of Gothenburg Department of Applied Information Technology and Valand School of Fine Arts Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2009

SUBJECT TO EMBODIMENT
Rethinking Embodiment, Presence and the Body
NEDINE KACHORNNAMSONG

Abstract With an objective to expand knowledge of physicality as an artistic tool, this paper explores the terms of phenomenological embodiment from the different perspective that is commonly applied in art theory. By presenting current researches from the field of new media development, the concept of embodiment is broadened from theory and practice of minimal art. The sense of presence and the body in relation to human experience is also investigated for a better understanding in how we perceive and interact with the world. By conducting a research-in-practice, the outcome of the finding is also implemented into an interactive installation which focuses on an embodied experience. Keywords embodiment, installation art, interactive installation, phenomenology, physical body, physical interaction, presence, probability, randomness

University of Gothenburg Department of Applied Information Technology and Valand School of Fine Arts Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2009

SUBJECT TO EMBODIMENT
Rethinking Embodiment, Presence and the Body
NEDINE KACHORNNAMSONG

Thesis for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts with specialization in Digital Media Report No. 2009-0057 ISSN: 1651-4769

University of Gothenburg Department of Applied Information Technology and Valand School of Fine Arts Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2009

Contents

Abstract Preface Acknowledgements ONE

2 4 5

ConcerningTechnology BeginningwithTools ConceptualisingTechnology MovingtotheNextStep EmbodimentinHCI TheQuestofPhysicality TheAbsenceoftheBody Retroduction ArtisticApproach PhantomFacet TheFirstChapter TexturalReality RepresentedReality LogicalReality BodylessReality Conclusion

6 12 19 25 32 40

TWO THREE FOUR FIVE

InAddition PhenomenologyandArt PresenceinMinimalism SensingthePresence Prospectus TheMedium TheData TheInteraction

SIX References Notes

48 52

Preface

To signify the main focus of my finding, this text was written in a form of a chronicle developmentofideasstartedinyear2007asaresearchinpractice.Withoutanactual pointofarrivalordeparturebetweeneachchapter,thiswrittenworkisanattemptto demonstrate a condition of beingintheworld and in the same time to promote the senseofpresence.However,ifyouprefertoreaditinanacademicwritingorder,feel freetolookatendnotesforanexplanationofthewritingstructure. Therearemanyinterestingarticlesonembodimentfromthefieldofcognitivescience, social anthropology and feminist theory that I wish to include unless a possibility to conductanextensiveresearch.Hence,theareaofmyresearchisfocusonthetermof embodimentappliedinnewmediastudies.Theviewprojectsonthispaperisgrounding in the world I inhabit where there is nothing to experience without I as a subject. In contrast to other personal pronouns (e.g., you, we, they and it), a definition of I containsuniversalpropertythatishardlychangedaccordingtousedcontextorculture. WhenIwasmentioned,weareunlikelytobedubiousofwhatitisreferringto.Onthat account, the reflection of I in this article is taken from the view of an individual regardlessofculturalorsituatedbackground.Certainly,wealwaysputourselvesinprior to the others, it is ones self who is the centre, especially when we are orientating ourselvesintheworld.Onthataccount,thereisnothingelsebutIwhoisinthecentre betweenleftandright,frontandbackorpastandfuture. Still,myapproachonthesubjectofexperienceisdifferentfromthoseinsubjectivism. Insteadoffocusingononesselfastheonlysourceofallexperientialactivities,Ibelieve thatitiscrucialtolookatexperienceinaholisticmannerinordertorecogniseitasa processthatbridgeindividualsandtheworld.Thisisbecausemostofthetimewhenwe address something to be on the left or right; in the front or back; from the past or future,itisnotadeclarationofourpositioninthemiddlebutanacttodetermineour relationshiptotheworldthatwearewillingtointeractwith.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the people from Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation, primarily Jacob Buur, Wendy Gunn, Marcelle Stienstra and Ben Matthews, for the invaluable twoyear experience and knowledge which are fundamental to this work. I alsoappreciatedcriticismfromMarikaOreniusandAnnaKindvallonThePresenceand TheBody(2008)installationandArneKjellVikhagenforthecommentonthechapteron e. Mygreatgratitudealsogoestopeoplewhohelpedmeindifferentwaysalongwiththe process, including Lina Persson, Marcus Lfqvist, Enrique Perez, Mari Lagerquist, JohannaAhlby,VadimDubrov,PernilleMllerPultz,SophyNaessandSofieNohrstedt.I alsowouldliketothankinparticular,SaraHallstrmwhoseconversationandcompany benefitedmetoagreatextent. Andeverythingwouldbeimpossiblewithoutmyparentsandmysister;Iamindebtedto theirpatienceandkindness. forboth,theabsencesandtheremains NedineKachornnamsong,2009

ONE

Cantwejustputitinrightaway?askedPernille. No matter what, you still need to process those images or else it will take ages to load I said, and people will die in boredom waitingforyourimagestoappear. OK, but then I want these images place next to each other, said Pernilleit(thepiece)supposestobeviewedthatway. Butthen,thelayoutofthispagewillchange,Icontinued.Things that make sense here (in physical world) dont always make sense there(oncyberspace).Ilookedather,waitingforanapproval. Why is it this hard? she said, I thought it was supposed to be easytomakeawebsite. Thishurtsmybrain. Dyouknow,Isaidyourbrainisbetterthanyouthink. Korsr,Denmark2008

Concerning Technology
Iaskedforanotherstory,onethatImightfindmoresatisfying. (Martel,2001)

Thehumanisananimaloftools;therefore,beinghumanistobecomeatusewithtools. We develop technology which is a fundamental aid for the production of tools to sustain, help and support us. Regardless of changes in tools and technologies, we as humans,alwaysadapttothecircumstance.Yet,thenewtechnology,suchascomputers andinformationtechnologiesseemstobemoreinvisible.Animplementationofthese technologieshasbecometransparentbuthighlyinfluentialinourlives.Thus,Ibelieve that rather than being opposed to the influence of technology, it is important to look intothetechnologywehavecreatedandacknowledgetherelationshipwehavewithit; particularly at this moment in time when we are in doubt about our mastery of technology. Inthischapter,Iwillexploretherelationshipbetweenhumans,toolsandtechnology.By following Martin Heideggers concept of technology I will further discuss the general meaning of technology as a subject of reflection. This concept of technology will be applied as a looking glass in order to investigate the relation between humans and (computer)technologyinthenextchapter.

BEGINNING WITH TOOLS

Bycreatingapparatuses,humankindhasbecomesuperiorwhilstnaturegivesintothe effectiveness of tools. A detour to avoid billions of years of mutation appears to be a tiny twist on Darwins Theory of Evolution where the success of natural selection is obtainedthroughtheinventions.Byequippinghumanswithanabilitytobendnature, aninstrumentalempowermentisakeyforoursurvival.Tocreatetoolsistosurviveand toplacehumansintoaparticularrelationshipwiththetools.WhenMarshallMcLuhan introduced the idea that media is an extension of the body (McLuhan, 2001), he expandedourawarenessofaninstrumentalaspectwithintools.Wecannotignorethat all of our formation is (probably) an extension of our body, as well as, within this concept,itmeansputtingallofourcreationintoaclassificationoftools.

Theprimaryconceptofthetoolistoequip;inotherwords,toeasesomecertaintasksin order to accomplish particular goals. This instrumental aspect of tools implies the relation between humans and tools as the masters and the servants. Yet, the relationship we build upon the use of tool is somehow exceptional. Confidence, attachmentandclosenessaresomeofthecommonsentimentswehaveregardtotools. Itdoesnotrequireacriticalsituationtoestablishsuchaconnectionwiththetoolswe usethefondnesswehavewithourfavouritepairofshoesmightbeasstrongasthe feelingprofessionalphotographershavetowardtheircameras.

CONCEPTUALISING TECHNOLOGY
Tobeabletofullyunderstandourrelationtotools,weshalllookfurtherintotheterms oftechnology.Withinourcommonknowledge,thecoexistenceoftoolsandtechnology is a close circle where tools construct technology; at the same time that technology reshapesthedevelopmentoftools.Whiletheinstrumentalaspectoftoolsissolidand concrete,theconceptoftechnologyissomehowabstractandnonfigurative.Toolsand technologyaretheunitedpartnerswhichareagreatcontributiontothedevelopment ofhumancivilisation.Technologyisperhapsthemostdiscussedasamajorinfluenceon thechangeofourlifewithinthelastcentury.Anumberoftheoreticalworksinthemid nineties proclaimed the end of postmodernism and the beginning of a new era of technologywheredigitalandbiotechnologyleadustoadisembodimentthebecoming of posthumanism (Hess & Zimmermann, 1999). For technomaniacs, the Posthuman utopia will be aided by mechanical slaves and eternal life will be resurrected in the digital paradise. Still, there are often incidents that portray an imperfect relationship between human and technology (Denillo, 2005). In everyday practice, the negative effectorthemisusedtechnologybearstheimageofthehumanwhohasbecomeatool oftechnology(Hoffman&Weiss,2006). WhenaskingtheQuestionConcerningTechnology(1977),aGermanPhilosopher,Martin Heideggerrenouncedtheconceptoftechnologyinananthropologicalandinstrumental aspectasameanstoanend.Heclaimedthatthechangeintheconceptionofmodern technology calls for us to broaden our view of technology, to find an essence of technology, to identify not only what technology is but also what it can be. Even so, therearesomefacetsoncommontermsoftechnologyhesharedwithus:

10

Who would ever deny that it is correct? It is in obvious conformity with what we are envisioning when we talk about technology. The instrumental definition of technology is indeed so uncannily correct thatitevenholdsformoderntechnology,ofwhich,inotherrespects, wemaintainwithsomejustificationthatitis,incontrasttotheolder handworktechnology,somethingcompletelydifferentandtherefore new.(Heidegger,1954:5) Perhaps it is the difference that is disturbing; or the newness: an image of techno dystopia often projected in media and literatures strongly confirms our pessimistic attitude toward technology. Scientists playing God in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein (1818); robotdictators in Metropolis (1926); human parasite machines in The Matrix (1999): these roles of technology have been reclassified to a possible source for machinedominationthatseekstoobliteratehumankind. Nothingseemsmoreobviousthanthehumanurgetomastertechnology.Thisbecame an immense interest within both areas of academia and popular media discourses in order to demystify our future digital society. We are daunted by the invisibility and persuasiveness of the technology. In response, it is the technology which is biding to retransparentisethehuman(Goulish,2000).Wemustaskourselvesnotonlyhowto controltechnologybutalsohowtolivewithtechnology.Hence,weshallreachfurther thantheinstrumentalnotionoftechnologysimilartowhatHeideggernoted: [] the instrumental conception of technology conditions every attempttobringmanintotherightrelationtotechnology.Everything dependsonourmanipulatingtechnologyinthepropermannerasa means.Wewill,aswesay,gettechnologyspirituallyinhand.We will master it. The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control. (Heidegger, 1954:5) Discarding the instrumental meaning of technology, Heidegger used etymology to pursue an essence of technology what the technology could be which is by no means anything technological (ibid). Later, he arrived with an argument that technology is a mode of revealing; it is the bringingforth of the concealment into unconcealment(ibid).However,moderntechnologyisdifferentfromtheformerones.

11

Hediscussedfurtherthatmoderntechnologyhasanabilitytochallengenatureandto putitintoapositionofstandingreserve.Toacertainextent,Moderntechnologywill shapeourviewofnaturemerelyasaresourceofsomethinginthestanceofstanding reserve. Accordingly, Heidegger claimed modern technology is an enframing a structuretoimprisonhumanityfromtheworld(ibid). To conceptualise technology as the enframing, we may count on it to dominate our relationship with the world. Since the world gives itself to us, it is crucial not to be careless and enframe ourselves on a selfdestructive course. Therefore, we shall take Heideggers idea of revealing further, and claim that technology is not only unconcealednatureoftheworldbutalsonatureofhumans.Forthatreason,weought to broaden our perspective of technology beyond being an apparatus to get things done.

MOVING TO THE NEXT STEP

Technology is a prominent source of understanding the way we use, create and maintaintoolsisanindicationofthewayweconstructourenvironment.Inotherwords, technology is a projection of the way we see the world as well as an appreciation of ourselvesintheworld.Inanumberofarguments,technologyhasbeenportrayedasthe antagonist who reshapes the structure of both culture and society. These are mostly seen as pristine acts, alterations of humans behaviour or prompt transformations, especially, in the age of computer technology. Still, the question is neither about changes computer technology brought nor opportunities this technology offered, but aboutanexcludabilitythetechnologyhas. ModerntechnologygaveHeideggeranawarenesstoreconsidertechnologysrelationto humanity.Today,decadeslater,withtheimplementationofcomputertechnology,our lives are more closely knitted with technology than ever, as computers have become moresophisticatedandpowerfuluniversalmachines.Still,anapplicationoftechnology shallnotenframeusfromthepossibilitywehave,ashumans,intheworld.

12

TWO

13

Thereisonlyonewaytodealwiththishumiliation:bowyourhead, let go of the idea that you know anything, and ask politely of this new machine, How do you wish to be operated? If you accept your ignorance, if you really admit to yourself that everything you knowisnowuseless,thenewmachinewillbegoodtoyouandtell you:hereishowtooperateme. EllenUllman,1997 ClosetotheMachine:TechnophiliaandItsDiscontent

14

Embodiment in HCI
Weinhabitourbodiesandtheyinturninhabittheworld, withseamlessconnectionbackandforth. (Dourish,2001) WiththeshiftfromCommandLineInterface(CLI)toGraphicalUserInterface(GUI),the computer becomes suitable for many uses and contexts from military and scientific operationtobusiness,domesticandeverydayuse.TheimplementationofGUIisproven tobesuccessfulintechnologicalproductssuchassoftware,websites,digitalhandhelds andhouseholdappliances. The visual metaphor employed in GUI has currently been investigated in the area of philosophy, cognitive science, perceptual psychology, etc. Within these studies, the nature of a screenbased platform has been questioned in terms of its relationship to thephysicalsetting.Similartothedualismexplainedbyrationalisticphilosophers,GUI referstousaswearelivinginaparallelworldofphysicalandcyberspace(Ishii&Ullmer, 1997) where our detachment between mental and physical sphere becomes the distinctionbetweensubjectandobject(Zahorik&Jenison,1998).Fromthispointof view, the transition between mind and physical reality is vital as if our actions are merelythethinkingprocess. Nonetheless,thisformofdualismisopposedbyphenomenologicalapproachesbecause theconciousnessisinthefirstplacenotamatterofIthinkbutofIcan(MerleauPonty 1962 : 137) and the perceptual interpretation has never been completely separated from the surrounding context (Dreyfus, 1991). This means that we cannot be truly analyticwithourselvesasasubjectortheworldasanobject(ibid,Winogard&Flores, 1986). In addition, the further argument from perceptual psychology coins in an idea thatabeinganditsenvironmentarecloselyrelated.Thisrelationshipreflectsfroman intervention between the organism and the world as well as the way they influence each other. For that reason, perception is a means of receiving information from the environment and it is an affordance that is the actionsupportive information which guidestheorganismarounditsenvironment(Gibson,1979).

15

THE QUEST OF PHYSICALITY

Thetermaffordancebecameaninfluentialsubjectwithinthedesigncommunitywhen DonaldNormanintroduceditinTheDesignofEverydayThings(2002).Heclaimedthat intuitive interpretation and physical mapping are the underlining aptitude of affordances.Theremarkablesteptowardthisideaofknowledgeintheworldproposed byNormanisIshiiandUllmersTangibleBits(1997)wherethephicons(physicalicons) arerepresentedasabridgebetweenphysicalworldandcyberspaceinordertoestablish aseamlessinteraction.Thesephiconsarethegraspableobjects.Byinteractingwithand moving the phicons around, the users command and manipulate the information that showsontheprojectedscreen(seefigure1).ThisoutcomeofTangibleBitsintroduceda newdisciplineinTangibleUserInterface(TUI)whichiswidelyimplementedinthearea ofComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW).Whiletheuseofphysicaliconsisapt tosupportamultiusersoperation,itisrelativelyhindranceforthesingleuserscenario.

Figure1:PhiconsusinginMetaDESK(left)andcomparisonbetweenTUIandGUI(right).

Later on, another HCI domain Tangible Interaction was developed from the same foundation as Tangible User Interface. Yet Tangible Interaction further involves the concept of embodiment referred by Paul Dourish in Where the Action Is (2001). He expandedthePhenomenologistsviewandclaimedthatthefoundationofouractionis notonlytheeverydayworldorphysicalsettingbutalsosocialaspectofthesurrounding. Dourish supported his argument by summarizing the characteristics of embodiment accordingtophilosophyandpsychology1: (1)Embodiedphenomenaarethosewhichbytheirverynatureoccur inrealtimeandrealspace.[](2)Embodimentisthepropertyofour engagementwiththeworldthatallowsustomakeitmeaningful.[] (3)EmbodiedInteractionisthecreation,manipulation,andsharingof
1

EdmundHusserl,MartinHeldegger,AlfredSchultz,MauriceMerleauPonty,LudwigWittgensteinand JamesJ.GibsonareamongthosescholarsreferredtobyDourish.

16

meaningthroughengagedinteractionwithartifacts.(Dourish,2001: 126) Dourishs perspective of embodiment is embraced as a main focus of Tangible Interactionwhichisthemeansofcreatingusabilityfromthecouplingbetweenphysical and virtual representation of data in order to give the user the right feedback and feedforward (Djajadiningrat, Wensveen, Frens &Overbeeke, 2004). However, the researchersinTangibleInteractionlaterextendedtheirfindingtocorporalaspectsfrom anthropologicalstudies(seeFigure2).Withinthisfocus,thenotionofknowledgeisalso expandedfromthemindintothebody(Ingold,2001)wherethehumanexperienceis grounded in bodily movement within a social and material environment (Jackson, 1983).Theseaspectsleadtotherelationshipbetweenbodilymovementandmotorskill whichislaterexplainedasanaestheticinteractionwithtangibleobjects(Djajadiningrat, Matthews&Stienstra,2007)2.

Figure2:Theinteractiondesignersareexploringanaestheticoftheirbodilymovement(left) andasketchofmovementsHumanvs.Object(right).

SimilartoTangibleUserInterface,TangibleInteractionhasitowndisadvantage.Within the frame of mobility and the cost of production, the screenbased products remain dominant in the current market and the tangible interface is far from a commercial success. Later on, the concept of Tangible Interaction is redefined by Hornecker and Buur. By broadening the scope of embodied interaction, Hornecker and Buur describe the three possible areas of HCI to encompass the Tangible Interaction studies. These includedareasareDataCenteredviewasdefinedintheareaofTangibleUserInterface, ExpressiveMovement centred as applies in product design with a focus on bodily

ThisviewofembodimentisclosertoMerleauPontysnotionofphysicalembodimentand phenomenologicalbody.

17

movementanditsknowledgeandSpaceCentredviewaswidelypracticedininteractive artandarchitecture.

THE ABSENCE OF THE BODY

Eventhoughtheconceptofembodimentsoundlyaddressestherealworldandphysical setting,itisalsoappliedinthedevelopmentofVirtualReality(VR)andcinematictheory. Discardingphysicality,theVRandcinematicresearchersputforwardalternativeaspects ofembodimenttexturalqualityandcompetingelements. ThefinesttexturalqualitydeliveredbytodayscinemaandVRcontendsforembodiment withanabsenceofthephysicalbody.InVRapplication,thereareanumberofstudies focusingonthetexturalqualitywhichcanbedistributedamongthesenses.According totheresults,theresearchersonVRclaimthatitisadequatetoconstitutethesenseof embodiment by enclosing the audience within the VR peripherals (Murray & Sixsmith, 1999). From this point, the feedback from the advance VR equipments, e.g. Head Mounted Displays (HMDs), surround sound system and data gloves are ample to simulate a supreme textural experience, hence providing the user an embodied experience. However,inthecinematicdiscourse,theargumentofVivianSobchackexplainshowthe cinemaachievesanembodimentbypresentingthefleshlypresenceofthehumanbody andthedimensionofthatbodysmaterialworld(Wood,2007:77).Sheassociatesthe lack of embodiment in digital effect cinema with the absence of presenting the real bodyintherealenvironment. []cinemarevealsourprocessesofperception,sinceitbothenacts perception in an equivalent way to a human viewing subject and presentsthatactofperceptioninthedurationofafilm.(ibid:77) Affirming Sobchacks perspective, Aylish Wood refers to the spatiotemporal embodimentexperiencethatoccurswhentheviewersestablisharelationshipbetween thecinematicsubjectandtheperception. Inthisviewthelinkbetweenperceptionandthecinematicemerges throughtheviewingsubject.Asperceivingsubjectsintheworldwe

18

select and combine what we see, shifting our attention simultaneouslyawayfromandtowardobjectsintheworld[].(ibid :77) From the point taken from Sobchacks argument, Wood gives and example of split screen movies such as Timecode (2000) and Hulk (2003)3. She suggests that in distributing a viewers attention these interfaces establish the ground from which it is possibletothinkaboutthematerialityofdigitalimagery,andalsoanembodiedviewer (ibid:77).Forthatreason,thecompetingelementsinthedigitalcinematechnologyis anothersourceoftheembodiedexperience.

Withinthewholelengthofthemovie,Timecodedevidesthescreeninto4smallscreenswhileHulk periodicallyswitchesbetweenfullscreenanddoublescreen.

19

THREE

20

Because mathematicians and engineers invented it and warriors paid for it, it was first used for things that mathematicians, engineers, and warriors care about. If painters and writers had invented it and weavers had paid for it, it would have been used differently. But that doesnt matter. Eventually, it will be used by everyoneforeverything,althoughitwillfirsthavetobecomealot morecomplicated. GregoryJ.E.Rawlins,1997 SlavesoftheMachine: theQuickeningofComputerTechnology

21

Retroduction
Today,aswestruggletoreconcilethevirtualagainstthetangible, Whatdoesitmeantoberealatall? (Helfand,2001) Importantornot,everythinghasitsownbeautyandbaresitsownaesthetic,muchof this perspective has been written in the discourse and the work of art. Will it be a physical object, a screen or Virtual Reality visible or invisible will it make any difference? Bywritingthispaper,Iambynomeansclaimingthatadeficiencyofembodimentwill defineatemporalseparationbetweenhumansandtheworld.Itismyintentionneither tocelebratetheperformanceofphysicalitynormanifesttheabsenceofcorporealbody appliedintheuseofcurrenttechnology.Iwouldnotarguethatthefollowingexpression I have here is found through my speculation, and of course, speculation is about creatingarelationshipbetweenexperienceandbackgroundknowledge.Therefore,itis myutmostattempttoquestionmyknowledgeofembodimentandrethinkitsessence. Atthemoment,itisobviousthatwearemovingawayfromthesignificanceofthebody whereneithermusclenorevenpresencearetrulyimportantinmoreandmoretasks (Bermudez & Hermanson, 2000 : 66). It is the theme that we are currently pursuing, then,whyamIconcernedwithphysicality? As a creative practitioner, I often worked with a quality of a tangible object, I apprehendedthatphysicalqualityhasanimmensepotentialasanartisticreferenceit haspowerthatnootherformofsimulationcanreplace.Myunderstandingoftangibility constantly increased within the framework of HCI and it became my potent creative tool. I have learned that tangible objects have a property of embodiment which gives the audience a sense of presence, a state of beingintheworld, in other words, an embodiedexperience.Sincethen,visibleorinvisible,Iappliedtheaspectofembodiment inmostoftheworksIproduced(seefigure3).Similartoaskilfulpractitionerwhoneeds totakegoodcareofthetools,Ialsoneedtomaintainmyunderstandingoftangibility andrethinkrelationshipsofphysicalityandembodiment.

22

Figure3(clockwise):MicrocosmoZ(2006),ProximitiveDisclosure(2007), UrbanAccessorist(2007)andWashroomNotice(2006).

ARTISTIC APPROACH
Arguing aboutphysicalproperties is longestablishedwithintheworksofartsincethe classical aesthetic until the blooming of modernism, installation, conceptual as well as contemporary art (Bishop, 2005). However, I would like to introduce some works of electronic art which centre on physicality/body perspective because it will be an area thattheoutcomeofthisresearch,myfutureinstallation,willapply. Inthelate1980s,advancesinthedevelopmentofVRraisedanenthusiasticvibewithin art and cognitive science theory. Jeffrey Shaw combined physical interface with VR outputinTheLegibleCity(1989).ThevirtualcityofAmsterdamwasrepresentedinform oftextsandletters.Whilepeddlingastationarybike,theaudienceexperiencedthecity tourasifheorshewascyclingaroundAmsterdamcity(seeFigure4,left).Fromtheview of cybernetic corporeal extension, many works of Stelarc challenged the limitation of thebodyandinthesametime,addressedthepossibilityofhavingasyntheticbody(see Figure4,centre).Frommanyworkswithintheareaofphysicalrepresentation,Iwould liketorefertoKerstinErgenzingersStudieZurSeh_n_Sucht(2007)(seeFigure4,right). She reconstructed the exhibition space by the moving surface represented the informationfromseismometer.

23

Figure4:JeffreyShaw,TheLegibleCity(1989)(left),Stelarc,RobotArm(19911994)(centre) andKerstinErgenzinger,StudieZurSeh_n_Sucht(2007)(right).

Asmentioned,itismyinteresttoapplytheHCIframeworkofembodimentanduseitto explorethemeaningofphysicalitywithintheartisticaspect.Hence,Idecidedtocentre myfindingwithintheextentofphysicalrepresentationasIattempttojustifymyoriginal knowledgeofembodiment.

PHANTOM FACET
InTheMetamorphosis(1916),FranzKafkaconstructsanexperienceofGregorSamsa,a man whose body turned into a form of vermin. This nightmarelike story portrays an idea of how the phantom body could alienate an individual from his or her context of socialandphysicalsetting4. Onemorning,asGregorSamsawaswakingupfromanxiousdreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed into a monstrous verminousbug.Helayonhisarmourhardbackandsaw,ashelifted hisheadupalittle,hisbrown,archedabdomendividedupintorigid bowlike sections. From this height the blanket, just about ready to slide off completely, could hardly stay in place. His numerous legs, pitifullythinincomparisontotherestofhiscircumference,flickered helplesslybeforehiseyes. Whatshappenedtome,hethought.Itwasnodream.Hisroom,a properroomforahumanbeing,onlysomewhattoosmall,layquietly between the four wellknown walls. (Kafka, 1912)

AlthoughtheworksofKafkaaremostlyarguedintermsofinterpretation,mysummaryhereisbasedon whatisliterallydescribedinTheMetamorphosis.

24

The articles concerning embodiment in the HCI framework investigate properties of embodiment from different angles. Regarding Tangible Interaction and Tangible User Interface,theexistenceofphysicalobjectisthesupremacyofembodimentwhileVRand cinematictheoristsclaimsthatitcouldbeachieveddifferently. Similar to the story of Gregor Samsa, the relationship of our mind, body, self and surroundingisundoubtedlyinterwoven.Sincetheessenceoftheembodimentmaylay deep in the relationship we have with the world, I decide to expand the area of my finding.

25

F O U R

26

Amaninhishouse,saysRivarol,doesnotliveonthestaircase, but makes use of it to go up and down and gain access to every room. The human mind, likewise, does not reside in numbers but usesthemtoattainallscienceandarts.Physicalrealitycaninspire number, but does not constitute number. Precisely because humans have learned to transmute the objects of physical reality intosimpleobjectsofabstractthought,sotheyhavebeenableto accomplishallthespectacularprogresscharacteristicofhumankind, andhavemanagedtopenetratethesecretsofsomanyaspectsof thetangibleUniverse. GeorgesIfrah,2001 TheUniversalHistoryofComputing: fromtheAbacustotheQuantumComputer

27

The First Chapter

Aretherelimitstothisworld? Ifweveperhapsseenitsends, howcanwelaugh,havefun? Wevealreadyexhaustedourselves,haventwe?5 (ShiinaRingo,2007) Itisacontradictioninthetheoriesofembodimentthatinterestedmeandatthesame time, made me feel uneasy. Even if these theories could be considered to have constructed the embodied interaction; the complexity of human experience is still in question. Fromthisstance,tofindtheessenceofembodiment,Iwouldliketoshiftthefocusto presence. This is because if embodiment is the property of our engagement with the world that allows us to make it meaningful (Dourish, 2001) 6, it is also about a possibility to act and react in the world. On the other hand, the possibility to act and reactisundoubtedlyrelatedtotheactualmoment,theperiodofnoworpresencea tantamount to successfully supported action in the environment (Zahorik & Jenison 1998).

TEXTURAL REALITY
RealnessasitisreferredtointheHCIdiscoursecanbetracedbacktoPlatoscritiqueon art.InthetimeofthisGreekphilosopher,tomakeartistorepresentasubjectfromthe realworld.Accordingly,inPlatospointofview,representationisnothingbutfakeand merely a replication (Carroll, 1999). We might easily agree with the Platonic notion if onlytodaystechnologywaslessefficientintranscribingourworld. Apparently, Virtual Reality has the ability to construct the textural quality of the real world. After being in VR, some users reported the need for interaction with their physicalbodyinordertoreassurethemselvesofbeingbackintherealworld(Murray& Sixsmith,1999).ThisisbecausetherealnessperceivedinVRisdeliveredbyconstructing

5 6

Translatedversionfromhttp://freckle.tenkeimedia.com/nl/ringo/konoyo.html DourishalsoclaimsIamusingtheterm(ofembodiment)largelytocaptureasenseof phenomenologicalpresence.

28

of human knowledge (Lovejoy, 2004). To sum up, experiencing VR is to receive a packageofwhatwemostlyencounterintheworldwithinthelimitationofVRcontext.

REPRESENTED REALITY
AnyonewhoisinterestedinEnglishLiteraturemustbeacquaintedwiththemysteryof William Shakespeares appearance. Despite the great works he has produced, there is no authentication of his portrait or picture; all evidence bearing his appearance was producedlaterafterhisdeath. Betweentwofantasyalternatives,thatHolbeintheYoungerhadlived longenoughtohavepaintedShakespeareorthataprototypeofthe camerahadbeeninventedearlyenoughtohavephotographedhim [] This is not just because it would presumably show what Shakespeare really looked like, for even if the hypothetical photograph were faded, barely legible, a brownish shadow, [] havingaphotographofShakespearewouldbelikehavinganailfrom theTrueCross.(Sontag,1977:154) Photography seems to be the first kind of technology that blurred the boundary betweenrealnessandrepresentation.Itinitiatedthequestionofwhatisrealandwhat seemstobereal.Photographydoesnotchangetheworld,ithasonlychangedtheway we evaluate the world. The original purpose of photography was to record any happening in the world. A generic photograph without any peculiar evidence rarely raiseddoubtabouttheauthenticityoftheeventcapturedinit. However, an ability to transcribe the appearance of the world is not the foremost featureofphotograph.TheabovestatementfromSusanSontag(OnPhotography,1997) addresses the important value of the photograph which lies beyond the content of it. Similar to that of a photograph, the essence of VR or physical objects are not about whattheyrepresentbuthowtheyareevaluated.

LOGICAL REALITY
The traditional approach in theory of representation is somehow as simple as in basic logic.Iftheentityispresented,itexistsandtherewilldefinitelybeamethodtoproveits

29

existence.Torepresentandinterprettherepresentationinthismoduleismoreorless similartothewayacomputeralgorithmisgenerated. Speaking broadly, we may say that by represent we mean that x represents y (where y ranges over a domain comprised of objects, person,eventsandaction)ifandonlyif(1)senderintendsx(e.g.,a picture)tostandfory(e.g.,aperson),and(2)anaudiencerecognizes thatxisintendedtostandfory.(Carroll,1999:50) EventhegreatthinkerLudwigWittgensteinonceproducedapolemicalwork,Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus,inordertodemonstrateadefiniterelationshipbetweenhumans, languageandtheworld7.Intheprefacetothebookhesummarises:whatcanbesaid atallcanbesaidclearly,andwhatwecannottalkaboutwemustpassoverinsilence (Wittgenstein,1961:3).TheboldnessofWittgensteinsstatementandtherigidlogical structure of the book create a strong impact on the reader. But although Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicusisfullofvividdescriptionbaseonlogic,itissomehowlimited. It would be unnecessary to argue about presence (or embodiment) if our relationship with the world was as transparent as the above representation model. In the second period of his philosophical work8, Wittgenstein recognized the complication of these relationships. As a result, his later work instead explains how the thought and the experiencebecomecontextindependencywithanendlesspossibility.

INFINITE REALITY
The foremost nature of presence is perhaps infinity. When we are dwelling in the moment of now, there is nothing as significant as the possibility to interact with the world. Martin Heidegger refers to this stage as the throwness which is a condition whenabeingisthrownintosituationsthatheorshemustpersistentlyactandreactto, alongwiththecircumstances.Withinthisconditionthebeinghastogowiththeflow

ThefocusofTractatusLogicoPhilosophicusistheuseofthelanguageasaconstitutionofthought. Becausethelanguageisdefinitetherefore,itdrawsalimittothethoughtaswell. ThesecondperiodworkofWittgensteinisPhilosophicalInvestigations(1953),whichstillcentredonthe applicationofthelanguage.However,heclaimedthatweareallplayingthelanguagegameandthe languageiscontextindependencyandsomehowindefinite.

30

just like the jazz musician who is playing in an improvisational group9 (Winograd & Flores1986,Zahorik&Jenison1998). Even though the throwness projects the nature of presence as unstable and unpredictable, it is different from the competing element referred to by cinematic theorists. This is because in throwness the world does not try to compete for our attention but the condition that we are always within its flow. It is this indefinite possibility that prepares us to encounter the randomness and pluralism of the world itselfthisishowouropenendedrelationshipwiththeworldiscreated.Atthispoint,it confirms the context independency as the prominent part that connects and loosely framesourexperience.

BODY-LESS REALITY
Theprevioussectionofthispartofthetextunfoldshowthebeingrelatestotheworld. It indicates that seeking absolute meaning from the world is not what our experience mostly takes into account, while navigating within the flow of the situation is more likelywhatwecarryout. From the idea of throwness I referred to previously, it seems hard not to imagine a future VR technology that will be able to accommodate all the features of Phenomenologicalembodiment.Theabsenceofthebodywillnolongerbeproblematic. Yet,Iwouldliketodrawyourattentionbacktothebody. For most of us, being is not a separate entity of mind or body but existence. We perceive ourselves in totality, not a product of mind and body, inner and outer or experienceandmovement(Dreyfus,1991),(Lindblom,2007).Consequently,eveninthe finestVirtualReality,thephysicalbodyisstillcrucialasexplainedbyKarenFrank: My experience of virtual reality depends upon my physical body's movement...ToseeImustmovemyhead.Toactuponanddothings in a virtual world I must bend, reach, walk, grasp, turn around and manipulate objects ... If the virtual is so physical, what body will I
Zahorik&JenisondescribestheconditionofthrownessinPresenceasBeingintheworld(1998)as follows:1)Actionisunavoidable.2)Detachedreflectionaboutactionisimpossible.3)Actioneffectsare unpredictable.4)Stablerepresentationofthesituationisimpossible.5)Representationisinterpretation.
9

31

leavebehind?Notmyphysicalbody.WithoutitIaminnoworldat all.Itisphysicalbodiesthatgiveusaccesstoanyworld.(Bermudez& Hermanson,1996:7) Iwouldliketopresentalesstheoretical,lessconcretetakeontheabsenceofthebody, whichappearsintheJapanesemovie,Hinokio(2005).Thestoryisaboutaboynamed Satoruwhoisrehabilitatingathomeafteracaraccident.Withthehelpofanadvanced VR system, Satoru can experience the world, attend school and socialise with other childrenviaaroboticavatar.Havingamachineforhisagentseemstobeasatisfactory situation for Satoru until one of his friends, Jun, starts to have doubts about the real (identity of) Satoru. At this point, the movie shows Jun and the robot chatting and havingicecreamsintheamusementpark.Whilethegirlisenjoyinghericecream,inthe robots mechanical hand the ice cream is left untouched and melting. The situation turns dramatic when Jun asks Satoru (through the robot) Where are you? The meaningofherquestionisnotaboutwhereistheboywhoremotelycontrolstherobot butwhyheislivingthroughit? SimilartoJun,thequestionIwouldliketoaddresshereisifwearesatisfiedwithour ownexistenceandhavefullconsciousnessofourphysicalbodywillwewanttoresidein thesimulationsystemandifso,whatwouldbethereason?

CONCLUSION
I strongly believe that the embodied experience requires the presence of a physical body.Toarguethattheembodimentexistswhenthebodyormindisabsentseemsto besuchaninadequateidea.Eventhoughtheworldisfullofknowledgeandaffordance, therewillbenousewithouttheperceiverbecausethesignificanceofembodimentlies inthepresenceandthemeaningoftheactualmomentthatweinteractwithinit.This measurementofthecurrentmomentneedstostartfromthepointofonesreality.For thatreason,tobeabletosignifytheperiodofnowistobecertainofourownexistence. Itisthebodythatweinhabit,butitisbothbodyandmindthatourexistencedwellsin.

32

FIVE

33

Forthoughitmaybeplausibletosaythattheproblemofphilosophy ofscience,thephilosophyofreligion,thephilosophyofartandso on,aresetforphilosophybyscience,religionandartetc.,itisnot at all obvious what sets the problem for metaphysics and epistemology. PeterWinch(1990) TheIdeaofaSocialScienceandItsRelationtoPhilosophy

34

In Addition
Onemaysaythatwerepresentsomething. Arewesureweknowwhatthismeans,today? Letusnotbetooquicktobelieveit. (JacquesDerrida,1982) Phenomenology has been employed in several disciplines of art in terms of human experience and sensation (e.g. sculpture, installation, theatre and performance). This philosophyofperceptionhastriggeredseveraldebatesconcerningspectatorshipwhere the relationship between artist, artefact and viewer was examined. As phenomenological concerns, the presence and the body have been a focus of the discussions around the modern art movement. They played significant roles in the development of art theory and methods which are a fundamental part of todays contemporaryart.

PHENOMENOLOGY AND ART

ItwastheMinimalartistswhointroducedthephenomenologicalsenseofpresencetoa board range of audiences in their installation works in the 1960s. Different from GeometricAbstractionpainterswhocreateanonfigurativetypeofworktopresentthe scienceofcomposition,theminimalartistsreferredtononanthropomorphicattributes in the subject of experience. At that time, the art and intellectual community was precipitatedupbyWittgensteinandtheExistentialistswriting(fromSartre,Kirkegaard and Camus) together with eastern religions and mysticism (e.g. Zen, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shamanism). In spite of that, it was the simple appearance of the piece10 togetherwithphenomenologicaltheorythatdistinguishedtheminimalworkfromother formalistmovementsinarthistory. After Phenomenology of Perception was translated into English in 1962, Maurice MerleauPonty was the most influential figure regarding the application of phenomenologyinartwhencomparedwithotherphenomenologicalphilosopherssuch asEdmundHusserlandMartinHeidegger.Manyofthepublishedarticlesreferredtohis philosophy as a means to relate to the work of minimalists. Presence is one of those
TheworksofMinimalartistsfurthermentionedinthisessayfocusontheareaofsculptureand installationworkaccordingtothedistinctivereferencetheyhavetophenomenology.
10

35

philosophical terms which were raised by artists, art theorists and critics to underline theexperienceofminimalartspectators.Theredundantuseofthetermpresencelater turneditintoanotherclichintheartcircle. Critically, presence was seen as a positive feature of a work of art. Writersandartistsusedthewordwithouthesitation,assumingthatit was universally understood. When questioned about this (presence) use of the term, Greenberg cursorily replied that it signified plentitude,afullnessdescribingyourreactiontoart,butthatthe term itself, like other metaphors, was not worth worrying about. In 1966,StellaalsosawitasamatterofterminologyItsjustanother way of describing. Peter Plagens capsulized the new American sculpture: Simple, geometric volumes imposing in size, static qualitiesandphysicalpresence.(Colpitt,1993:70) By implementing the idea of phenomenology, artists and theorists claimed that the minimalworkdeliveredmoresenseofpresencehenceyieldinganactiveexperiencefor the viewers. In order to achieve the sense of presence, the minimal artist dealt with scale,nonanthropomorphicrepresentation,architectureandenvironmentofthepiece (Colpitt,1993).

PRESENCE AND MINIMAL ART

Presence has become the mainfactor eradicating the traditional relationship between theartist,theworkandtheaudience.Toreturnthecentreoftheartexperiencetothe spectator, the minimal artists pursued the more active role of spectatorship. Nevertheless, before going into the minimal artists statements about presence, I believe that we shall recess from its definition, and instead take a look into the techniquesofminimalartistsintermsofphenomenologyandthebody. Scalewashighlyconcernedwiththeartworkssizeinrelationtothesizeofhumanbody in minimalist theory. It was common to either produce a large piece of work, (and sometimes,thelargeclusterofworkwhichiscontainingmanysmalleritems)oratthe humanscale (see Figure 5). For some of the minimal artists, scale was superior to all otherconcerns.

36

Figure5:FrankStella,EmpressofIndia(1965)(left)andDonaldJudd,Untitled(1965)(right).

It'simportantthatNewman'spaintingsarelarge,butit'sevenmore importantthattheyarelargescaled.Thisscaleisoneofthemost important developments in the twentiethcentury art. All of the best American art, to this moment, has this scale. The form and qualitiesoftheworkcouldn'texistotherwise(Judd,1970). Besidethescale,shapeseemstohaveitssignificantrelationtopresenceinminimalist theory. In 1967, Michael Fried said about sense of presence: (it) can be conferred by sizeorbythelookofnonart(Fried,1967).Thelookofnonart11mentionedbyFried isanonanthropomorphic/simplegeometricshapeemployedinminimalart. Another feature of minimal artis its relationship with architecture or environment. At the beginning of minimalism, even though the placement of art objects is very important,theartistsdidnotconsiderasthemasaninstallationuntilthe1970swhen artists like Robert Irwin and Michael Asher began to submerge their works into the architecture.

11

Friedusesthetermnonarttodistinguishminimalart,whichhasitslookasanobject,fromtraditional orotherartmovements.

37

SENSING THE PRESENCE

Whilethescaleusedinminimalartisexpectingtoheightentheviewersawarenessby initiating a comparison between perceptual body and the exhibited artefact (Fried, 1967), the function of the geometrical shape is to defamiliarize what observers normallyseeintheworld. The technique of art is to make objects unfamiliar, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.[]Thepurposeofartistoimpartthesensationofthings astheyareperceivedandnotastheyareknown.(Shklovsky,1916: 16) ShklovskysstatementonFormalistwritingseemstopreciselyexplaintheessenceofthe minimal art experience which the minimal art practitioners were expected to deliver. Hence,thehollownessandtheincompletenessofthepieceiswaitingtobefulfilledby thebeholder(Morris,1966),(Fried,1967).Perhaps,itwasMerleauPontysdescription of the differencebetweenthethingweseeandthethingweknowthattriggeredthe ideaofminimalism.Theindisputabletransformationofhistextsintopracticecouldbe seen in works such as Tony Smiths Die (1962/1968) and Robert Morriss Untitled (L Beams)(1965)(seeFigure6). FromthepointofviewofmybodyIneverseeasequalthesixsides ofthecube,evenifitismadeofglass,andyetthewordcubehasa meaning; the cube itself, the cube in reality, beyond its sensible appearances, has its six equal sides. As I move around it, I see the frontface,hithertoasquare,changeitsshape,thendisappear,while theothersidescomeintoviewandonebyonebecomesquares.[] Thecubewithsixequalsides,isnotonlyinvisible,butinconceivable. (MerleauPonty,1962:235237) Incontrastwithminimalisttheory,theperceivableincompletenessdoesnotinaugurates thelackofpresenceinphenomenology,especially,whenweencountertheabsenceof unityofcharacterinobjects(Barbaras,2006).Togiveaclearexplanation,Iwouldliketo usetheexampleofthejadestone.LetusimaginethatIaminthejewelleryshopand find a beautiful bracelet made of jade. Despite of how it looks, when I have it in my

38

hand, it seems to be too light to be made of stone. Not to be deceived by its appearance,Idecidedtomeasurethetemperatureofthebraceletbytouchingitwith mylipsthecolderthebracelet,themoreIwillbelievethatitismadefromrealstone.

Figure6:TonySmith,Die(1962/1968)(left)andRobertMorrissUntitled(LBeams)(1965)(right).

Fromthestory,thequalityofbeingjadestonebecomesdeficientduetothelightnessof the weight. This lack of unity did not characterise the sense of presence in jade stone but triggered my knowledge about it. Thus confusion between perception and intellection arise (Barbaras, 2006) when the awareness of situation is elevated, my sensationturnedtobefullyattentive,andthememoryappearedtoberesponsive.This is because perceiving is not the same as remembering (though they both are closely relatedwithmemory)asMerleauPontynoted: To remember is not to bring into the focus of consciousness a self subsistentpictureofthepast;itistothrustdeeplyintothehorizonof the past and take apart step by step the interlocked perspectives until the experiences which it epitomizes are as if relived in their temporalsetting.(MerleauPonty,1962:22) Accordingly,Iwouldarguethattheminimalartperhapsdoesnotcontainmorepresence than common object but the incompleteness and the wellplanned scale manifestly heighten the beholders experience it delivers no other moment except the current one.Forthatreason,theexperienceofminimalartissimilartotheoneconveyedbyThe TreacheryofImages(192829)fromRenMagrittesincetheyforcetheaudiencetoan awareness of existence that goes beyond the presence of any particular art object (Battcock, 1968 : 32). The confrontation between the perceived artefact and the

39

representedknowledgeclearlyseparatesthebeholderfromtheobject.Eventhoughthis could be credited as the minimalists success in supporting an argument of Merleau Ponty in terms of the rejection of an objective body, the act of comparison between what one perceives and what one knows is more correspond with the idea of inner manratherthanasenseofpresence. Perception is not a science of the world, it is not even an act, a deliberatetakingupofaposition;itisthebackgroundfromwhichall acts stand out, and is presupposed by them. The world is not an object such that I have in my possession the law of its making; it is thenaturalsettingof,andfieldfor,allmythoughtsandallmyexplicit perceptions.[]ormoreaccurately,thereisnoinnerman,manisin the world, and only in the world does he know himself. (Merleau Ponty,1962:xi) MerleauPontys exposition on the denouncement of inner man is comparable to Heideggersconceptofbeingintheworldashecontinued: It is never our objective body that we move, but our phenomenal body, and there is no mystery in that, since our body, as the potentialityofthisorthatpartoftheworld,surgestowardsobjects tobegraspedandperceivesthem.(MerleauPonty,1962:106) At this point, I am eager to depart from the investigation and apply the finding to my artisticpractice.

40

SIX

41

WhatiscalledNoveltyArtbytheFormalistsisoftentheattempt tofindnewlanguages,althoughanewlanguagesdoesntnecessary mean the framing of new proposition: e.g. most kinetic and electronicart. (JosephKosuth,1969)

42

Prospectus
Alicelaughed."There'snousetrying," shesaid:"onecan'tbelieveimpossiblethings." "Idaresayyouhavn'thadmuchpractice,"saidtheQueen. "WhenIwasyourage,Ialwaysdiditforhalfanhouraday. Why,sometimesI'vebelievedasmanyas siximpossiblethingsbeforebreakfast[...] (LewisCarroll,1871) In minimalist theory, an object is full of presence once it can prompt the perceiver to scrutinise the real space and time where he/she is situated. Yet, there is no clear distinction whether this process of contemplation belongs to Ren Descartes I think, thereforeIamorMerleauPontysIthinkbutofIcan.Inphilosophicalconsideration thesetwoideasarejuxtaposedwitheachotherbutineverydaypractise,thedifference betweenthemishardforustofathom.Thisispossiblyduetothenonexistenceofinner manwhichmakestheanalysisofselfasthesecondpersonisunattainable. It was the physicality and embodied experience12 that commenced me to start this thought experiment. Therefore, I would like to return to the objective of this thinking processtoadvancemyunderstandingofembodimentanduseitasanartistictool.

THE MEDIUM
The problem that appears in the minimalist debate is not merely about the lack of presence in art but the problem of representation in general. As a result, the minimal artists tried to produce the work with the representation of nothing by reducing its appearance to the simplest form. For that reason together with the deficiency in engaging body in the material art (Bolt, 2004), it is a challenge for me to create work that not only delivers an embodied experience but also contains some sort of representation. And because this article is mainly concerned with form and representation, it would be more appropriate for me to put the medium prior to the contentoftherepresentation(seeFigure9).

In1960s,embodimentwasrarelyreferredintheminimalismtheoryincontrastwiththecommonuse ofthetermpresence.

12

43

Figure7:Somesketchesmadealongtheprocess,thesystemdiagram(left), conceptualdrawing(centre)andattachedmotor(right).

Inspired by everyday media such as advertisements, online games, and movies that alwaysvisualisethreedimensional(3D)perspectiveonatwodimensional(2D)medium, I would like to play around with this concept of representation. I choose paper as the primary platform since it is a classic material for visual representation. Instead of representing information on it, I preferred to directly use it in a representation to presenttheactualcharacteristicofphysicality.SinceIhavechosentoworkwithpaper,I havebeenintriguedbytheuseofdiagraminordertopresentanextensiveamountof information.Thefunctionofthesimpleformusedindiagrampartlycorrespondstothe geometricalformofminimalartoneistosimplifytheinformation,anotheristoemit the information. I decided to present the data in the form of bar chart because it is a suitableformforthechosenmediumandfurthersupportanargumentoftheproperty ofthethreedimensionalobject. Asmentionedinapreviouspartofthispaper,Ibelievedthatthesignificantqualityof physicality could be perceived and it is similar to the way we evaluate reality within photography, movies or VR. However, most importantly, it is not about the difference betweenwhatwesenseandwhatweknowasreferredtoregardingminimalismtheory buthowthevaluewasgiven. By choosing paper as a material, I was attempting to expose the 3D form of it. A thin plainpaperstripissomehowcomparabletoMerleauPontyscube;youwillseeasolid line with different widths depending on your angle (see figure 8). Still, the nature of paperalsoconcealsitselffrom2D3Dcomparison.Insteadofputtingitonthewall,the strips were hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the installation space. This small

44

change of placement exposed the perceived 3D property of the paper while ensuring that the comparison remained unnoticed. This is because I believe that to force spectatorstotheawarenessoftheirperceptionobjectasitiscomparestoobjectasit isknownisacontrarytothephenomenologicalexperience.

THE DATA
Being certain about form and material use in the final piece, I continued to work on mechanicalandprogrammingtasks.Theissueofcontentisstillpending.Althoughthere aremanytypesofinformationthatcouldbeusedasaninputfortheproject,theyseem tooverwhelmtheactualpointofmyfinding.WheneverIpresentedmyworkingprocess, I was alwaysquestionedaboutwhatkindofdatathepiece will represent.Thepeople wereupseteverytimeifIsimplyrepliedthatmyinterestliesnotwithinthecontentbut the representation itself. Could this be the same dilemma which was solved by minimalism?Ifso,istheonlywaytopurelyaddresstheissueisdiscardingthecontent? Is it hard for us to be satisfied if we know that this object A represents X, without knowingwhattheXis?

THE PROBABILITY
While experimenting with different types of information (e.g. temperature, weather forecast, currency exchange, air and sound quality), I also continued to work on the physical part of the piece. Then I failed to get the mechanical components I ordered even when I tried to get them from another company. I was so surprised that two differentcompaniescouldbothmakemistakesandrefusedtoreimbursethepayment. Thisincidentcalledmebacktotheessenceofmypriorfinding. Itwasunexpectedformetofailtogetthecomponents,butIwouldnotclaimthatitis impossible to happen. When such a situation took place, we could experience phenomenologicalthrownessclearly.Atthispoint,thejazzmusicianbecameanunjust metaphor. If we all are really in the same band why do we most of the time always pursuedifferentambitions?Besides,theworldismuchbiggerthananimprovisational bandandthemajorityoflivingcreaturesdonotevenrecognisemyexistence.IfIamnot intheimprovisationalband,whatismyrelationtotheworld?

45

Perhaps,thewaytounderstandourembodiedexperienceintheworldistoacceptthe probability in the Infinite Monkey Theorem. This mathematic theory was set to illustrate the probability of indefinite random sequences. It states that if there are infinite numbers of monkeys typing on infinite numbers of typewriters for an infinite amount of time they will produce a complete work of Shakespeare. Of course in technique,evenifitismathematicallypossibleforthemonkeytowriteaShakespearean sonnet,still,itsoundsabsurdinreality.ButwhatifIinsistthatthereisapossibilityfor oneofthosemonkeystobecomeagreatplaywright?Ifthatisstillunsound,letusrecall thatthedefiniterelatedspeciesofthosemonkeys,havealreadyuseddefinitetypesof toolstoproducesomeofthegreatestliteratureswehaveeverknownandoneofthose monkeyrelatedcreaturesisinfactnamedShakespeare. Thisacceptationofpossibilityshowshowwearerelatedtotheworld.Weacknowledge theprobability,yettheneedforsecurityleadsustopredictandanalysethisiswhywe classifyeverythingweknowasobjects.Therefore,Idecidedtomakeaninstallationthat somehowincorporatesthethrownessastheessentialembodiedexperienceofbeingin theworld.

THE INTERACTION
I chose to create the randomness from the collection of certainty by using electromagnetic signals received from the installation environment. It is a type of radiation that is produced by any kind of electronic device. The ripple of the electromagnetic field produces the interference between lamps, spectators mobile phones,thepiece,andotherexhibitedpiecesareallsuitableinputs.Togivetheviewer a strong sense of throwness, it is better for the piece to avoid direct interaction. Therefore, I further implemented another set of algorithms the value read from the rippleinordertogenerateadiscreteresponse.Thissequenceisillustratedasasystem flowasfollows: eletromagneticripple> >receivedbyantennas> >microprocessorconvertsvaluestonumbers> >thenappliesalgorithmtothenumbers> >sendstomotorsforrotation> >paperstripsslowlymoveupordown


Figure8:NedineKachornamsong,ThePresenceandtheBody(2008): paper,mirror,woodandelectroniccomponents. 46

 Figure9:DetailsofThePresenceandtheBody(2008). 47

48

References
Battcock,Gregory(1968).MinimalArt:aCriticalAnthology(1995).(G.Battcock,edited &A.Wagner,introduction)Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Barbaras, Renaud (2006). Desire and Distance: Introduction to a Phenomenology of Perception.California:StandfordUniversityPress. Bermudez, Julio & Hermanson, Robert (1996). Tectonics After Virtuality: Returning to theBody.ProceedingsofACSAInternationalConference.Copenhagen,Denmark:Royal AcademyofFineArtsSchoolofArchitecture,6671.Retrived:Retrieved:October,2007, fromhttp://faculty.arch.utah.edu/people/faculty/julio/tecto.pdf Bishop,Claire(2005).InstallationArt.London:TatePublishing. Bolt,Barbara(2004).ArtBeyondRepresentation:thePerformativePoweroftheImage. London:I.B.Tauris. Carroll,Lewis(1781).ThroughtheLookingGlass,andWhatAliceFoundThere.Courier DoverPublication. Carroll, Nol (1999). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction. London : Routledge. Colpitt, Frances (1993). Minimal Art : the Critical Perspective. Seattle : University of WashingtonPress. Derrida, Jacques (1982). Sending: On Representation. Transforming the Hermeneutic Context:fromNietzschetoNancy(1990).(G.L.Ormiston&A.D.Schrift,edited).New York:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Dinello,Danile(2005).Technophobia!ScienceFictionVisionsofPosthumanTechnology. Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. Djajadiningrat, Tom. Matthews, Ben & Stienstra, Marcelle (2007). Easy Doesnt Do It: Skill and Expression in Tangible Aesthetics. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11, 8, 657676Retrieved:August,2007,fromSpringerLink. Djajadiningrat, Tom.Wensveen, Stephan.Frens, Joep &Overbeeke, Kees (2004). Tangible Products: Redressing the Balance between Appearance and Action. Personal andUbiquitousComputing,8,5,294309Retrieved:September,2005,fromACMDigital Library. Dourish, Paul (2001). Where the Action Is: the Foundations of Embodied Interaction. London:MITPress.

49

Dreyfus,HubertL.(1991).Beingintheworld:ACommentaryonHeideggersBeingand Time,divisionI.Cambridge:MITPress. Fried, Michael (1967). Art and Objecthood. Art in theory, 19002000 : an anthology of changingideas(2003).(C.Harrison&P.Wood,edited).Massachusetts:Blackwell. Gibson,JamesJ.(1979).TheEcologicalApproachtoVisualPerception.Boston:Houghton Mifflin. Goulish, Matthew (2000). 39 Microlectures: In Proximity of Performance. London : Routledge. Hess, John & Zimmermann, Patricia R. (1999). Transnational Digital Imaginaries. Wide Angle,21(1),149167.OhioUniversitySchoolofFilm.

Heidegger,Martin(1993).TheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays.New YorkHarper&Row. Helfand, Jessica (2001). Screen: Essays on Graphic Design, New Media, and Visual Culture.UnitedStates:PrincetonArchitectualPress. Hoffman,PeterJ.&Weiss,ThomasG.(2006)Sword&Salve:ConfrontingNewWarsand HumanitarianCrises.Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield. Hornecker, Eva & Buur, Jacob (2006) Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A FrameworkonPhysicalSpaceandSocialInteraction.ProceedingsoftheCHIconference 2006,437446Retrieved:June,2007,fromACMDigitalLibrary. Ifrah, Georges (2001). The Universal History of Computing: from the Abacus to the QuantumComputer.UnitedStates:JohnWiley&Sons. Ingold, Tim (2001). Beyond Art and Technology: The Anthropology of Skill. Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. (M. B. Schiffer, edited) Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress. Ishii,Hiroshi&Ullmer,Brygg(1997).Tangiblebits:towardsseamlessinterfacesbetween people, bits and atoms. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computingsystems,234241Retrieved:July,2005,fromACMDigitalLibrary. Jackson,Michael(1983).KnowledgeoftheBody.Man,18,2,327345Retrieved:August, 2007,fromJSTOR. Judd, Donald (1970). Barnett Newman. Studio International. 179, 919 Retrieved: November,2008,fromStudioInternationalArchive. Kafka,Franz(1912).Metamorphosis.KessingerPublishing.Retrieved:March,2008from http://books.google.se/

50

Kosuth,Joseph(1969).ArtAfterPhilosophyandAfter:CollectedWriting,19661990(G. Guercio,Eds.).London:MITPress. Lindblom, Jessica (2007). Minding the Body: Interacting socially through embodied action.Linkping:LinkpingUniversity. Lovejoy, Margot (2004). Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age. New York : Routledge. MarleauPonty, Maurice (1962). The Phenomenology of Perception. (C. Smith, Trans). London:Routledge. Martel,Yann(2001).LifeofPi.UnitedStates:AHarvestBook. McLuhan, Marshall (2001). The Medium is the Message: An Inventory of Effects. California:GingkoPress. Morris,Robert(1966).ConceptualArt(2002).(P.Osborne,edited).London:Phaidon. Murray,CraigD.&Sixsmith,Judith(1999).TheCorporealBodyinVirtualReality.Ethos: Body,Self,andTechnology,27,3,315343Retrieved:December,2007,fromJSTOR. Norman,DonaldA.(2002).TheDesignofEverydayThings.UnitedStates:BasicBook. Rawlins, Gregore J.E. (1998). Slaves of the Machine: The Quickening of Computer Technology.UnitedStates:MITPress. Shklovsky, Viktor (1916). Art as Technique. Literary Theory: An Anthology (2004). (J. Rivkin&M.Ryan,Edited)1521.Massachusetts:Blackwell. Sontag,Susan(1977).OnPhotography.NewYork:Picador. Ullman,Ellen(1997).ClosetotheMachine:TechnophiliaandItsDiscontent.California: CityLightsBooks. Winch,Peter(1990).TheIdeaofaSocialScienceandItsRelationtoPhilosophy.London: Routledge. Winograd,Terry&Flores,Fernando(1986).UnderstandingComputersandCognition:A NewFoundationforDesign.Reading:AddisonWesley. Wittgenstein,Ludwig(1961).TractatusLogicoPhilosophicus.London:Routledge. Wood,Aylish(2007).DigitalEncounters.London:Routledge.

51

Zahorik, Pavel & Jenison, Rick L. (1998). Presence as Beingintheworld. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 1, 7889 Retrieved: July, 2005, from ACM DigitalLibrary.

52

Notes

On structure of the paper: ONE : The originalreasonwhyIaminterestintechnologyandhowcanitbeuse tocreatethebetterunderstandinginourselves. TWO : Acomprehensiveintroductionoftheembodimenttheoryappliedwithin theHumanComputerInteractionframework. Similar to the project introduction which describes my motivation and approachintheaspectofembodiment. TheexpansionofmyfindingintotheareaofPhenomenologicalPresence andthenecessityofthebody. FIVE : SIX : TheexpansionofmyfindingintotheareaofPhenomenologicalPresence. Theimplementationofthefinding. FOUR : THREE :